Mary- other children

[MaggieOH]

John1717:

Really? So God was unable to preserve His Word! So I guess we should just scrap the bible and rely on the infallible Roman Catholic Church!
Now, before we take this off topic by getting into a subject matter that is not a part of this thread, I will simply say that once again your assumptions are wrong and are bordering on absurdity.

I am talking about translations from one language to another, what on earth are you talking about that you have come up with such an absurd statement? The Bible was not written in English. The authors were of Hebraic origin and they spoke in Aramaic, that is how they expressed themselves. They did not express themselves in Greek. There is sufficient research around that supports what I am saying. What you have is purely based upon assumptions that are not proven.

Oh and by the way I have corrected your bad spelling.

Your presumption, that the word “until” can mean, what happens up to a certain point and not after, is valid. This is the meaning of the Greek word heous. However, in Matthew 1:25 a different Greek construction is used than in the other passages you cite. It is the Greek construction heous hou, which literally means, before but not after. This phrase is used throughout the New Testament and in every instance, without exception, it means before but not after. Had the Holy Spirit wished to convey the thought that Mary was a perpetual virgin, He could have ended the verse, “kept her a virgin.”

**I see that you take the Svendsen/White interpretation and conclude that what they say is correct. Well in case you did not know, both Svendsen and White are incorrect with their claim about the meaning of until.
It seems that you are stuck on the Greek and ignore the Semitic understanding of until. Well I have a work that shows precisely what was said in the Hebrew, as translated back from the Greek, into the French and then into English:

“and he did not know her up to the point when she bore a son and he called his name ieschoua”

This is taken from Claude Tresmontant’s “Gospel of Matthew”. This translation still leaves it open as to what happened afterwards, but that is irrelevant because the author of the Gospel was not giving us that information. He was telling us that Mary was pregnant due to divine intervention. That is the essential meaning of this one verse in Scripture. Anything else, such as the wildly inaccurate Svendsen interpretation is mere conjecture and should be dismissed as nothing more than the neo-Helvidian heresy. It is enough to make Martin Luther and John Calvin turn over in their graves to think that Protestants are propagating this particular heresy.

It is the modern English Scriptures that make this translation and it has been done for reasons of bigotry and bias. If it is due to the idea of modernizing the language then it has failed in the task of keeping to the original meaning of the Scripture.
**

 

[Tom]

RehLlits:

Tom your posts amuse me and I want to reply. I’m so glad I have brought some humor into your life. My response was to your questions about Mary, not about the teachings of the Church in general. It was my fault to interject comments about the need for Scriptural reference in Church teachings, i am sorry. If youÍd like to discuss the teachings of the Church and the history of sacred Scripture start a new thread.

 

[MaggieOH]

John1717:

In Matthew 16:18 Jesus said, “Thou art Peter**(petros, a stone)** and upon this(taute, Peters statement of faith, “Thou are the Christ, the Son of the living God”)* rock*(petra, a huge rock foundation) I will build my Church”. According to Catholic teaching, this verse proves that Peter was the head of the church and its’ first pope, but is this true. As you know, the New Testament was written in Greek. The Greek words petros (Peter or stone), **petra **(rock, a huge rock foundation) and taute (Peter’s statement of faith-“Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God”) are used. Peter is a stone and Jesus is the rock foundation. Jesus was not referring to Peter when He said, *“**and upon this rock **I will build my church” He was referring to Peters’ statement of faith. Reading the entire passage (Matthew 16:13-20) in context reveals that the subject is Jesus not Peter. In Matthew 16:13 Jesus asks, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” Then in verse 15 Jesus asks, **“But what about you…Who do you say that I am?”*In verse 16 Peter makes his statement of faith; “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”In verse 17 Jesus replies, “Blessed are you Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven” As can be plainly seen, Jesus Christ is the foundation of the true Church! 1 Corinthians 3:11 states,“*For no one can lay any foundation ***other than the one laid, which is Christ Jesus.” The true Church is built on Jesus not Peter! Read 1 Corinthians 10:4, Ephesians 1:22-23, and 2:20.

As for Mary worship, have you ever attended a “May Crowning?” If thats not worship then nothing is! Just because the Catholic Church doesn’t “officially” teach Mary worship, it doesn’t mean it isn’t practiced by Catholics! Have you ever seen pilgrims traveling to Lourdes, Fatima or Guadalupe? If thats not worship, what is??? :bowdown2:

A discussion about Peter as the Rock, which is indisputably in Matthew’s Gospel is off topic in this thread. Please start a new thread so that discussion can proceed.

Maggie

 

[Xavier]

Benadam:

I’m sorry but unless you can acknowledge that the Ark of the Old Covenant was a type of what was the real Ark of the Covenant to come, that carried God in the Flesh. The only purpose in making that statement is to avoid recognizing the catholic meaning attached to the Ark of the Covenant.

The Ark of the Covenant was a container that housed the Ten Commandments— a material reminder of Gods covenant and also His law.
It was from the Ark of the Covenant in the Holy of Holies that the pillar of fire by night and the cloud by day —Gods physical presense amoung His people estended from.

 

[Tom]

Xavier:

Catholics have a necessity for this doctrine thus their theologey is driven by necessity not truth.

And just what “necessity” is that? We don’t need it to be true, it’s simply always been accepted in the Church that Jesus established.

Xavier:

What vow of virginity?

You obviously haven’t read all the posts here, just for fun read them.

 

[Xavier]

Benadam:

I didn’t look up all of these but the first few was telling eneogh. None of them (at least the first few) refer to the Ark of the Covenant. You apparently don’t grasp the meaning of the Ark of the Covenant. First of all it contains the covenant not the Holy Spirit. The passages you referenced here are references to the Spirit indwelling within Christians. Christians participate in the Ark’s function as bearers of the covenant from age to age but only one person in scripture can claim this blessing as theirs from age to age and that is Mary.

In my haste to supply my scripture I failed to connect the dots I pray I may do so at this time.
The Scripture I refered to demonstrates that not only God the Holy Spirit dwells in our hearts but that the triune God Father, Son and Spirit dwells within us. It is this God who writes his laws on our hearts and places the law in our minds(Heb8:6-12, Jer31:33-34) Which is the new covenant. The Ark of the New Covenant houses Gods law just sas the Ark of the Old Covenant —we are the Ark of the New Covenant.

The Ark of the Covenant carries within it the ‘establishment’ of the covenant which no individual Christan can do except Mary

It is in our hearts that God has established His covenant with us.
All Christians carry this and not only can but do.

On top of the Ark were two Cherebum with wings touching. They are a symbol of the expression ‘age to age’ The symbol is demonstrated in scriptural events. The Ark that Noah built carried the seed of the woman from one age to the next preserving for all humanity the promises of God. One could argue as you do that the body of Noah was the Ark of the Covenant but that would require that Noah be the fullfillment of the prophecy in Genesis.

Just as Noahs Ark carried the Godly seed of mankind the Ark of the New Covenant carries Gods seed in this age.–It is us.

**

**Mary’s Song **

46And Mary said: “My soul glorifies the Lord
47and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, 48for he has been mindful
of the humble state of his servant. From now on all generations will call me blessed,
49for the Mighty One has done great things for me–
holy is his name. 50His mercy extends to those who fear him,
from generation to generation. 51He has performed mighty deeds with his arm;
he has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts. 52He has brought down rulers from their thrones
but has lifted up the humble. 53He has filled the hungry with good things
but has sent the rich away empty. 54He has helped his servant Israel,
remembering to be merciful 55to Abraham and his descendants forever,
even as he said to our fathers.”
**
A beautifull song that should have meaning to all of us. God has looked kindly on all us humble people to dwell in us.

So, even though the Ark of the Covenant does represent a human body it primarily represents the body of one individual person’s body. It is an archetypical symbol in that it represents the first woman in Genesis who’s seed will produce the Messiah and the New Eve who’s seed ‘did’ produce the Messiah.

The Ark reprents the “mystical body of Christ” and the human body of each believer.

 

[Tom]

Xavier:

My accusation is that some Catholics have made Mary an idol, it is neither false nor is off topic.

I would say “No” Catholic makes Mary an idol, but I can’t obviously say what every individual Catholic thinks, I can only say what the Church teaches and that is definately that she is NOT God, she is entirely human, she is honored for several reasons, some being she is the mother of, she is the first and most perfect Christian, the list is long, but the point is she is not God, she is not an idol, she is our mother in Christ, we love her, please do the same.

 

[Xavier]

MaggieOH:

Do you know what is meant by “The New Covenant”? In other words who is the New Covenant?

I will give you a hint. Please read the following passages so that you will be enlightened:

Matt 26:26-29
Mark 14: 22-25
Luke 22: 19-20

Once you have grasped who it is, then ask yourself another question:

Who carried the New Covenant in her womb for 9 months of gestation?

I can assure you that this is what is meant when through a reading of Scripture Mary is recognized by the early Church Fathers as the Ark of the New Covenant.

MaggieOH

Hebrews
8:8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah-- 8:9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord. 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 8:11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds F34 I will remember no more.” F35 The new covenant that God has made with us is that he will write is laws in our hearts and place them on our minds. The Ark of the Covenant which housed the Old Law-the law of Moses. The Ark of the New Covenant hoses the new law----as Christians we are that Ark.

 

[MaggieOH]

]

It is hard to imagine the argument against Mary having other children being more thin or groundless. Number one, nowhere does the Word of God say she had no other Children and so it is a doctrine, which is not based on solid Scripture. Nowhere in the Scripture does it say that Mary did have children. You are relying upon a false assumption and a false dichotomy of either/or. Anyway you are wrong to say that the Scripture said that she did not have other children. The Scripture is silent on the matter. If you had bothered to read other posts, including the posts that have been provided to you on other lists where you have been debating this same thing for several years, you would know that Scripture provides the answers but you deny the proof that has been given.

The men who are named in the Scripture have other parents. The men are Joseph, Simon, James and Jude Thaddeus. This James is the Apostle, also known as James the Less and the Bishop of Jerusalem. The lists of the Apostles give the name of his father as Alphaeus. That means that Joseph is not his father. The mother of these four is named as the other Mary.

Also the Scripture says that Jesus gave his mother to John the Apostle whilst he was dying on the Cross. Under Jewish law he would not be able to do such a thing because that duty belongs to other family members.

The argument that you present is a non-argument that has been solidly shot down to the ground and should not continue to be resurrected.

Number two; Roman Catholics have made the fundamental error of building a house from the roof down

. In other words, they started out with a conclusion, and then set out to find what they call “technicalities” in the Greek to try and give the appearance their conclusions have support. But any logical Bible scholar knows that sound Bible hermeneutics (the art and science of biblical interpretation) doesn’t start out with a conclusion and then search for justification of it, rather, it starts out with the Word of God, and then follows it to it’s conclusion. Since THERE IS NOTHING IN GOD’S WORD WHICH SAYS OR EVEN IMPLIES THAT MARY HAD NO OTHER CHILDREN, that starting conclusion is based on man’s thoughts, not God’s.

**Of course the boot is on the other foot. you have made a very wordy objection but it does not cut ice because in reality it is the fundamentalist like yourself who does precisely what you claim about Catholic apologists.

Your premise is the following:

There is nothing in the Scripture which says or implies that Mary did not have other children, and to claim that she did not have children is based on man’s thoughts.

What I am saying to you is that it is your premise that is false. Because there is nothing in the Scripture that even remotely supports such an assumption.

You hide behind this Scripture Only lurk so that you do not have to do proper research. The early Church fathers believed that Mary was the Perpetual Virgin. Sure there are some dissenting voices. Those dissenters have also been declared heretics. Helvidius the heretic was soundly denounced for making the same claim that you have made. In other words you are spreading the neo-Helvidius heresy, just as Svendsen and James White are spreading the Neo-Helvidius heresy.

**

 

[Xavier]

MaggieOH:

Your quotes have nothing to do with the Ark of the New Covenant. You are confusing the Holy Spirit with the Son of God, who is the Word made Flesh.

Maggie

The Scripture I refered to demonstrates that not only God the Holy Spirit dwells in our hearts but that the triune God Father, Son and Spirit dwells within us. It is this God who writes his laws on our hearts and places the law in our minds(Heb8:6-12, Jer31:33-34) Which is the new covenant. The Ark of the New Covenant houses Gods law just sas the Ark of the Old Covenant —we are the Ark of the New Covenant.

 

[Xavier]

MaggieOH:

first of all you are quoting totally out of context here with your quote from Jeremiah. This is a prophecy that points to the coming of Jesus Christ and the era of grace. It does not answer my question to you. That is one that you have not addressed properly but have used whatever document you have been given as a proof text of your position. Hence you are using your proof text out of context and have disproved nothing.

Reference Jeremiah with Hebrews 8:8-12
These two scriptures refer to the New Covenant. The Old Covenant failed because sinfull man (generic) could not abide by the law. In the New Covenant all Gentile and jew can live rightously because the law is written in our hearts and placed on our minds.

Then you add an insult by asking if I am a believer. I am a God-fearing Catholic. I love my God. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah and that I have been redeemed. I believe that God can offer me the free gift of grace and that he urges me, through grace to do His Will. Can you say the same or do you just pay lip service by saying “I believe” and “Lord Lord”?

I asked you if you are a believer in order to know if you have the New Covenant—that which is written in your heart. The word says that if you confess the Lord jesus Christ with your mouth, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead you will be saved.

Please note that I have had to correct your horrendous spelling error again.

your a peach.

No we are not the Ark of the New Covenant. Please read the following from the Book of Revelation:

“Then the sanctuary of God in Heaven opened, and the Ark of the Covenant could be seen inside it…” (Rev 11:19)

Few Evangelicals will address the meaning of this verse. But one thing is for sure, it negates your notion that “we are the ark of the covenant”.

I disagree as stated in previous posts

You are using Jeremiah to claim that we are the ark of the covenant and that it is Father, Son and Holy Spirit that dwells within? What about using the New Testament Scriptures where this error is denied?Agin New Testament lines up-see Hebrews8

We are the sons and daughters of God, not because we say we believe but because we have died to sin through Baptism

We die to the flesh but are born again in the spirit

This kind of twisting of Scripture is truly outrageous. What an effort to deny that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant because it is she who bore Jesus in Her womb. Not you or me. We are filled with God’s Grace but we do not and cannot physically bear the Christ, who is the New Covenant in His Blood. Talk about convoluted reasoning !!

What on earth are you saying here

Mary was asked to physically carry Jesus in her womb. We are not asked to carry Jesus. We who are filled with the grace of God are asked to pick up our cross and follow Him.

How can you call yourself a Christian when you lie about Catholics so readily?

Maggie

I have let scripture speak for itself.
We are asked to carry Christ within us as mary was asked to carry him within herself.

 

[Xavier]

MaggieOH:

you are missing the point about what I am saying regarding lust. A marriage bed can be defiled if a husband does not respect his wife and demands that she gives him what he wants. That is where there is a problem. To this statement I will add that this is a two way street and can apply to a wife as well. It boils down to having an incredibly selfish attitude towards one’s partner that is neither healthy nor sacred. Otherwise your quote is out of context to this discussion.

I tend to agree that there must respect in the mariage bed.
1Cor7:4 would say that it is uneccesary.

so you believe that it is not necessary to show that it is not possible for Jesus to be anything other than conceived by the Holy Spirit… how interesting… … does that mean that you actually believe that Jesus is the Messiah? That Jesus is the Son of the Ever-Living God?

Ya know if Mary had other children that would mean that Mary and Joseph might have concoted their story in order to hide the real reason that she became pregnant. If that was the case then Christianity is a lie…

you lost me there

I take it that your bible has Luke’s Gospel. Then take a look at the first chapter. Mary asks the angel “How can that be because I do not know man”. Now that does not sound right for a young woman who has entered a covenantal agreement because that agreement is one that means that she should have children. Yet Mary asks this question. This indicates that she had a vow of virginity. Then you have to ask yourself why did Joseph wrestle so hard with the fact that Mary was pregnant? It is because he knew of the vow, and he could not understand how it had been broken. He did not want to have Mary shamed and publicly stoned to death.

Because mary was a virgin at the time that the angel visited her does it mean that she took a vow of virginity for her entire life?

wrong again pal.

Does this mean we are now friends?

Corinthians is referring to the pagans and not the Jews in Jerusalem. All of these things were the behaviours of the pagans in Corinth, which was a seaport and like any seaport it had its seedy characters. The Christians in Corinth had supposedly moved away from those behaviours.

1Cor 5 speaks of adultry in the Corintian church.

The hang up exists for those who see only the intimate side of marriage and do not comprehend the companionship and love that can grow between two people without that extra form of intimacy.

Maggie

We found something we can agree upon

 

[dennisknapp]

Xavier:

I tend to agree that there must respect in the mariage bed.
1Cor7:4 would say that it is uneccesary.

you lost me there

Because mary was a virgin at the time that the angel visited her does it mean that she took a vow of virginity for her entire life?

Does this mean we are now friends?

1Cor 5 speaks of adultry in the Corintian church.

We found something we can agree upon

Regarding our Blessed Mother:

This all boils down to authority. Protestants chose to pit Scripture vs. the Church in an attempt at proving a false idealogy that came into existence during the 16th century, or later. Protestant for the most part, disregard all of history until the 16 century and look upon those who existed prior to the “Reformation” as horribly deceived. I know, I used to be one of them.

What I needed (and they need) was a history lesson. Once I understood the history of the Church, and proper doctrinal development, I accepted the truth claims of the Catholic Church.

May God enlighten all Protestants to their historical bias and lead them into the fullness of truth. Amen

Peace

 

[MaggieOH]

Xavier:

The Ark of the Covenant was a container that housed the Ten Commandments— a material reminder of Gods covenant and also His law.
It was from the Ark of the Covenant in the Holy of Holies that the pillar of fire by night and the cloud by day —God’s physical presence among His people estended from.

Xavier, well done. You have done your homework concerning the Old Testament Ark of the Covenant. You are precisely right that this is the role of the original Ark of the Covenant. This is an outstanding and honest answer. :tiphat:

However, we are not under the Old Covenant. We have been born into the New Covenant.

The Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament is a type or a prefigurement of what is to come. You have correctly identified the Shekinah or the Glory of God as being with the people. So now let’s go a little further. I hope that you will check these references with the same charity that you have given with the preceding answer:

" He took me to the gate, the one facing east. I saw the Glory of the God of Israel approaching from the east." (Ez 43:1)

“The glory of Yahweh arrived at the Temple by the east gate.” (Ezk 43:4)

“He brought me back to the east gate of the sanctuary. It was shut. Yahweh said to me, 'This gate will be kept shut. No one will open it or go through it since Yahweh the God of Israel has been through it. And so it must be kept shut.” (Ez 44:1-2)

“Drink all of you from this, he said, for this is my blood, the blood of the covenant, which is to be poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” (Matt 26:27)

“In the same way he took the cup after supper, and said, This cup is the NEW COVENANT in my BLOOD.” (1 Cor 11:25)

Can you tell me who is the New Covenant? Who carried the New Covenant in her womb for the period of gestation?

Maggie

 

[MaggieOH]

Here is another verse to contemplate:

“However, though woman cannot do without man, neither can man do without woman, in the Lord; woman may come from man, but man is born of woman - both come from God” ( 1Cor 11:12)

Maggie

 

[MaggieOH]

Xavier:

I tend to agree that there must respect in the mariage bed.
1Cor7:4 would say that it is uneccesary.

This still has no bearing on the relationship between Mary and Joseph. Paul is speaking against those who refrain from each other but carry on affairs with others. Paul speaks of mutual consent in the marital relationship. This does not alter the belief that Mary had a vow and that Joseph, having done nothing to annul the vow is held to that vow. It also does not alter the alternate belief that Joseph also took a vow of chasitity which made him a suitable husband and protector of Mary.

you lost me there

well I hope you will find yourself very soon. What I am saying to you is that your comments showed precisely why the Church has always taught that Mary is Ever-Virgin. This doctrine is not about Mary. It is about Jesus. It is about who He says He is. It is about our whole belief system that Jesus is the Messiah.

If it could be proved that Mary had other children with Joseph then why would anyone want to believe that there is anything special, divine or holy about Jesus? It could be that Mary wanted to hide the truth about the real father of her child.

At the time that Mary was still alive the “Jews” put around the story that Jesus was the son of a Roman soldier. Can you see the implications of that claim? They were saying that he was the bastard son of a Roman soldier and that Mary was not telling the truth about His Divine origin. If Mary had other children then those children would be additional fuel for that argument.

Because Mary was a virgin at the time that the angel visited her does it mean that she took a vow of virginity for her entire life?

Read what the Book of Numbers says about vows and pledges. She is held to the vow. If, on the day of their betrothal Joseph knew about the vow and he did nothing about it, then yes, Mary is a virgin for life.

However, we are still going back to the point where one has to argue that since Mary had within her womb, the Divine Presence, thus making her womb holy, Mary truly did belong wholly to God.

Does this mean we are now friends?

only if you behave yourself

1Cor 5 speaks of adultry in the Corintian church.

Yes Corinthians speaks of adultery in the Corinthian Church but not in Jerusalem. There is a difference and one must remember “who is the original audience”. In that way you avoid making interpretations of Scripture that are not present in what you are reading.

Maggie

 

[oudave]

Hi-
Now I don’t know if Jesus had siblings or not, I would say that because the Bible refurs to his brothers and sisters that he might well have had a brother or sister.This is the main problem that I have with teachings of the catholic church. The Bible nowhere states that
Jesus did not have any siblings, so the only thing left for catholics to do is assume the he didn’t. The fact that the Bible refurs to his brothers or sisters leaves the burden of proof on the catholic church, which it cannot prove. This is the same case in many matters of difference between the catholic church and protestant church. We say look at the Bible and you say look at some book written by some theologian hundreds of years later.
In Him, Dave.

 

[MaggieOH]

Xavier:

We are asked to carry Christ within us as mary was asked to carry him within herself.

No, No a thousand times No. This is not an interpretation that is based upon what the Scripture is saying!!! :nope::nope:

What Mary was asked to do is unique to Mary. She bore the physical Son of God.

What we bear is Spirit, not flesh. There is one very big difference. What a pity that you do not own a Bible that has the Book of Wisdom, because I would tell you to go read what is written there about both the Holy Spirit and Grace.

We have grace within us, just as Mary was given the gift of grace that made her the one who was so highly favoured by God that she was chosen to bear the Son of God.

Grace is that gift of God that helps us to reach eternal life. It is God’s special gift to us. It helps to sanctify us. It helps us to learn to know God through His Holy Spirit. It is what we need within us if we are to reach heaven. IT IS OUR INHERITANCE TO THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN.

We lose this grace every time we commit a personal sin, and every time we commit a more serious kind of sin we lose an even bigger chunk of grace such that if we do not repent we will kill our souls. That is the difference between us and Mary.

I cannot understand where these ideas are coming from. I do not know who is teaching such bad theology, and it really is very bad theology if you are equating yourself to the Ark of the New Covenant.

Maggie

 

[Xavier]

dennisknapp:

Regarding our Blessed Mother:

This all boils down to authority. Protestants chose to pit Scripture vs. the Church in an attempt at proving a false idealogy that came into existence during the 16th century, or later. Protestant for the most part, disregard all of history until the 16 century and look upon those who existed prior to the “Reformation” as horribly deceived. I know, I used to be one of them.

What I needed (and they need) was a history lesson. Once I understood the history of the Church, and proper doctrinal development, I accepted the truth claims of the Catholic Church.

May God enlighten all Protestants to their historical bias and lead them into the fullness of truth. Amen

Peace

I dont see this as argument of authority, I see it as one of idolitry.
Teh old Testament is a Story of Gods people who followed him and then would stray, God chastises them they repent then go astray again. This is a constant theme, even the great kings of Isreal had idolitress sons, look at David and Solomon etc etc.

Idolitry is anthing (person,place or thing) you place before God or above God. A couple of times Jesus warned us of this Luke11:27-28 and Matt12:47-50.
When Jesus instructs us to pray to God in this way and instead we pray the hail mary it is idolitress. I do not say this lightly my family is caught up in it.

 

[MaggieOH]

John1717:

**The doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity is not only false but utterly ludicrous. Do Catholics not ask themselves the question that logically stems from this insane doctrine? **Why would God yoke the sinless eternal virgin Mother of God to a man if she had to deny her marital relationship? Again, this doctrine is totally against the Bible and is just another step in desecrating the special places that belong only to Jesus Christ.

Do you ever manage to make it out of the bedroom and stop thinking that just because we are a sex-crazed society that the time of Jesus Christ was the same?

The whole argument of the neo-Helvidian is based upon a notion that it is not normal to remain continent in marriage. No wonder it is so hard to comprehend if one cannot get out of the bedroom long enough to recognize that there is another more intimate side to marriage than the one that takes place in the bedroom.

Did it strike you that Mary and Joseph slept in separate beds or bedrooms. You know people in the nineteenth century, and in particular in upper class England did sleep in separate rooms. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that this is how Mary and Joseph managed to live in a continent marriage that was truly very holy and blessed by the Lord. They did not need a swag of children because they were blessed with the holiest of children: Jesus.

Maggie